Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Cultural Professionals

Principles for linking to your collections[edit]

As many more GLAM institutions get on board, I've heard a few stories of how their links have been reverted, as over-zealous editors confuse it with linkspamming. Generally GLAM links are put under the "External links" section of an article. I wonder if it would be wise to start a trend to have a separate section for archival materials, maybe something like "Archival materials" (which I've seen in a handful of articles). - kosboot (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Could be promoted alongside the cite archives template as best practice? I'd prefer Archival Sources myself :-) Merrilee (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller and Jytdog are (I believe) against the practice of linking to Finding Aids in the external links section. kosboot and Merrilee recommend citing archival materials in a separate sub-section. How does that sound? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization?[edit]

I and my two students have been adding lots of finding aid links to the external links sections of their relevant pages. I'm trying to standardize the way we add links in the most convenient way possible.

One of my students started using the cite archive template in the external links section, but I think the citation template should be reserved for adding the collection as a reference or in the further reading section. For the Bibliographies/Works section on this page, it has the cite web template as an example. Is that because it worked better for the example source, or should any finding aid be linked using the cite web template if it's listed in the Bibliography/Works section?

Also, is using cite archive in the external links section incorrect? Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachel Helps (BYU), you can use a citation template (including cite archive) in the external links section if you want to - that particular example worked better with cite web, but could also be done using cite archive. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could also consider adding a section called "archival sources" and putting your links in there. Merrilee (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, Nikkimaria and Merrilee; is there any particular benefit to adding the link using a citation template? I'll probably keep adding them as external links in the external links section. When there's more than one link to a library, I like to make an archival sources subsection of the external links section, but maybe it would be better to add it as a completely different section? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing information in special collections[edit]

Hello again. Me and my two students have been creating and adding to Wikipedia pages, sometimes using information contained in a special collection. Recently a user said that using information in a special collection was original research on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Howard_Rusk_Long. Anyone can come view our special collections, but for some collections, it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever publish an entire book using the collection, but it still contains valuable information. Does summarizing information from within a special collection constitute original research? Sometimes a collection contains not just autobiographical material, but also letters to that person or newsclippings that aren't available online. Should we stop citing information found in special collections? The existence of the cite archive template suggests that some citation of an archive is appropriate--would it be possible to make it more clear when such citation is appropriate? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material cited to a primary source may be but is not automatically original research - it really depends on what exactly you're using the primary sources to say. The relevant policy is WP:PSTS. Citing newspaper clippings that aren't online is generally okay. Does that answer your question? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I'll ask the user in question what their opinion is as well. I feel like I should start making a guideline about how to use special collections as sources on Wikipedia pages. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had this question since I deal primarily with Special Collections material at work. The way it was explained to me emphasized the verifiability factor. If the item is unpublished, it is essentially unverifiable. The implication being that WP would be filled with fallacious content merely because it was cited in unpublished material and can't be verified except with a visit to the location of the material (some of which may be in private hands and not viewable). (The work-around is "publishing" the item by means of an image posted to Commons - something which I've done with a few articles.) But in general, one should avoid relying on unpublished material. - kosboot (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special collections as described above are technically "published" by Wikipedia standards - per WP:V, "published" means "made available to the public in some form", and explicitly includes "material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding External links to material in special collections that don't actually allow you to view the material[edit]

Responding to a request from User:Rachel Helps (BYU) to discuss this here. I had a specific concern about the rapid fire addition of links which only led to the location of something at a University library of a text. That looked to me like academic spam and I didn't see how such a link could be useful as an external link. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Hi Doug, I recognize that this might be something that is of large conversation in the community, but as researchers use Wikimedia projects more and more: we have to acknowledge that a large chunk of the challenge with finding special collections and other non-digitized records for people, is figuring out where they are at. For example, @Fuzheado: tells the story of a curator at the Smithsonian who studied an artist extensively, who didn't know about a special collection about an artist in Vermont, until they found the external link to that collection: even though the special collection was not digitized. Subsequently, the curator figured out a strategy for accessing the collection (as a mix of digitization and a visit I think). Its fairly common practice for more and more archives to list eachother: because research in one, will increase the likely of researchers to use the other; we could support that practice. Additionally, we have fairly good colloquial and research evidence that both reference and external link sections are not very heavily seen by audiences, except those specifically seeking out further research: so I would think that its a useful tool for that audience. One tactic might be creating an "Archival collections" section that integrates the discussion more. I also wanted to note, that you haven't pointed at a specific diff, so these are general comments that may not apply to this specific situation, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with a small number of external links to specific special collections held by various libraries, museums, and similar institutions. That's part of what the whole WP:GLAM movement is designed to do: make those much more accessible and easier to find. We usually rank academic sources right at the top, so having links to a small number of those sources in related articles shouldn't be a problem, IMHO. We have to make sure we don't get too many of them, but if such a case arises, it can be dealt with on the talk of the article to determine which are the best to keep. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on an external link I expect to get more than a location of something I can't access without going there physically. I'm happy with such links being used in references where appropriate, and I think User:Astinson (WMF)'s suggestion of an "Archival collection" section is excellent and should be implemented where appropriate. It also occurs to me I should have started this discussion at WT:EL. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I personally think we should be trying to create narrative descriptions of these collections either in independent sections, or as part of Further reading/Further sources sections. Though not executed excellently, there is a model at: Gordon Parks#Legacy preservation and archives, which I worked on in my volunteer capacity at one point. It might be something to highlight in WP:EL: that academic sources of information and their access should be highlighted elsewhere throughout the article when relevant. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as web referrer to scholarly articles[edit]

You state that Wikipedia is on the «Top ten web referrer to scholarly articles». I'm very interested to have data about it. Where can I found it? MlaplanteD (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour MlaplanteD, see for example this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading[edit]

Parts of this page are very misleading. I also wonder why it's a subpage of TWL. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library was previously also responsible for some Librarian-facing work. This now lives in other places at the Foundation (GLAM, Campaigns). So it's primarily for historical reasons - we're not actively using or updating this page. If it would be more appropriate somewhere else or with modifications please feel free to rework it :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, thanks for the reply. There seem to be several of these pages. I may redirect them to Wikipedia:GLAM/About or incorporate text from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's misleading about the content that was previously here..? Thanks! --Dnllnd (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the content on this page get replaced by a redirect?[edit]

The content on this page was redirected by SlimVirgin last December to a Wikimedian in residence page but there's no explanation why. The above conversation the content being misleading and mentions pointing it to a GLAM page but I can't tell how the unrelated Wikimedia relationship arose... It's useful info and I don't understand why it's been wiped. Was there a decision made about blanking it somewhere other than here on the talk page? It's still getting linked to at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Library page, for example. I'd like to revert back to the original content, if not.. Thanks. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the pre-wipe state. The content remains useful, even if it's out of date and the soft redirect to the Wikimedians in residence page made no sense and broke the links in the nav box on the parent Wikipedia Library page. --Dnllnd (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]